“Nobody
really knows. I mean, what is happening with the economy is not well
understood. It is based on extremely opaque financial manipulations,
which are quite hard to decode. I mean, the general process is
understood, but whether the $800 billion, or probably larger
government stimulus, will overcome this crisis, is not known.”

Chomsky
might not know, but his claim “nobody really knows”
is FALSE. So is the statement: “I mean, what is
happening with the economy is not well understood.” And
also this: “It is based on extremely opaque financial
manipulations, which are quite hard to decode.”

Noam
Chomsky would be excited to learn that his once nondescript student
not only KNOWS, but has acquired the magical decoder that can “decode
the opaque financial transactions” rather trivially. And he
has done just that in “Monetary
Conspiracy for World Government”.
And gone a step further in “Monetary
Reform: Who will bell the cat?”
And to not guard his new found knowledge too covetously, he has
disseminated that knowledge to all and sundry who might wish to drink
from that wellspring of carefully compiled publicly available
information in its full context in “Monetary
Reform Bibliography”.
The latter is subtitled “A self-study guide for uncovering
the agendas behind the economics gibberish”.

A
search of the afore-stated decoder quoted-strings with any internet
search engine should solve the greatest source of misery and mystery
on the planet rather trivially. It is disturbingly surprising to this
scribe that a superlative mind like Noam Chomsky's can’t solve
such a trivial puzzle, or has been denied access to the magical
decoder by the higher providence which sustains him. It is in the
same way that without access to a forensic decoder, the “arguably
the most important intellectual alive”
according to the New York Times, for the past 7 years has continued
to blindly rely upon the mantra of the Pentagon and the White House –
Bin Laden did 911 and that there is an external enemy called the
“Islamists” – but with his ingenious contribution
that that's just the blowback of a criminal foreign policy. To his
credit, in almost all cases, Chomsky very accurately describes the
diabolical themes in the carefully enacted puppetshows, such as how
'big bird is being awfully misanthropic and about to eat the cookie
monsters favorite meal', as he has done once again in this Press TV
interview.

My
Providence, fortunately for me, has been far kinder to my arguably
humbler and much inferior mind, or so it would appear. I can see the
puppetmasters rather plainly, despite the semi-invisible strings
cloaked in massive deception that might dazzle even the 'Amazing
Kreskin'. If one is curious to know what is it that a nondescript
rather ordinary former student of Noam Chomsky knows that his teacher
doesn't, and what compels the student to ponder upon his teacher's
amazing 'blindsight' before the world, please see Project
Humanbeingsfirst’s monthly report on “Financial Terrorism
January
2009”
and replace Congressman Ron Paul’s name with Noam Chomsky’s
for the passage which begins with:

“Congressman
Ron Paul continually resists the temptation of putting his
trigger-finger on these crimes against humanity as an inside job!
Watch him do his repeat performance also with respect to 911 and the
manufactured ‘war on terror’, as merely the blowback of a
reckless foreign policy rather than an inside job with a fabricated
enemy,”

Reproduced
below following the excerpt, is the relevant portion of Chomsky's
interview with Press TV. Either Press TV has limited cognitive and
forensic capacities, like my favorite rebel-politician Chavez of
Venezuela who held up one of Noam Chomsky’s famous books at the
UN to draw attention to the criminal excesses of American imperialism
but despite the opportunity and the open microphone on the
world-stage, did not dare call 911 an 'inside job', nor dare connect
the disparate global crises that are calculatingly hurtling the world
towards 'one-world' government. Or, arguably, perhaps all have drank
from the same globalists' table.

Are
these rebel-leaders of dissent, deliberately being circumspect in not
proclaiming the grotesque core-truths before the public even when
each has huge numbers of fawning followers? Some rather compelling
reasons for such inaction were outlined by W. Cleon Skousen in his
forensic commentary on Prof. Carroll Quigley's 1966 revelations in
“Tragedy and Hope” about the international banking
establishment:

'The
real value of Tragedy and Hope ... [is the] bold and boastful
admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively
small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a
choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of
course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could
wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of
life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle
down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the
scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its
power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together
with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or
corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a
world-wide basis.' (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, pg.
6)

But
what is even more peculiar is that even presumably arch nemesis, like
the Iranian government is of the United States government (and vice
versa), and its most articulate President Ahmadinijad who is invited
and granted visas to visit the United States and permitted to give
long platitudinous speeches at the UN and at prestigious American
University – speeches that are woefully devoid of any
comprehension of Machiavellian political science or sophisticated
Hegelian dialects – and who stand to directly benefit from
exposing the United States' ruling-elite's fraud of 911 deception and
their drive for world-government, remain conspicuously silent.

If
one were to judge the Hegelian tree by its fruits, Press TV and the
Iranian rulers appear to be in on the complex con-game of
manufacturing tension, and that inescapable conclusion simply boggles
the mind. In fact, it boggles the mind in no less measure than the
discovery that fascism, nazism, and communism, were all manufactured
with Anglo-American capital. Its blood-soaked owners traced to
financial interests on Wall Street, and to the fraternity of
International banksters. The same monied-interests, including many
well known names whose descendants have played havoc in the world,
had once tried to turn the United States into a fascist dictatorship
by attempting to orchestrate a coup d'état with a private
army. They were only thwarted by a conscionable US Marines' General
whose services they had enlisted, Maj. General Smedley Butler. The
same Anglo-American blood-stained hands are also behind creating and
sustaining Israel and its tortuous creed of Zionism, as is repeatedly
made self-evident, most recently by the 'harmless' appointment of
Sandy Fisher, the deputy managing director of the International
Monetary Fund, to the post of Governor of the Bank of Israel.

All
“isms” of recent modernity, including Bin Laden's
“Islamism”, are indubitably manufactured by the
diabolical capitalists of the West. Is also “Iranism”?
That thought finds some support among the imperial dissidents of the
orthodox Iranian regime who repeatedly allege that Ayatollah Khoemeni
was brought to power by Western Intelligence (having sheltered and
protected him during his exile in France, what other conclusion these
hungry homeless folks longing for their palaces can draw), but they
are impossible to believe as anything other than the 'Ahmad Chalabis'
of Iran.

No,
this lack of bold pronouncements from the Iranian leadership –
never mind Noam Chomsky or Chavez – when the rising dissident
movement and scientific evidence right here in the United States
demonstrates that expert controlled-demolition was the only
scientifically tenable first-cause of the onset of the WTC-1, WTC-2,
and WTC-7 buildings catastrophic explosion/collapse, is at a much
deeper and diabolically hidden level. Even before evidence for
controlled demolition had accumulated, the complete absence of
NORAD's air defenses on the very day of the “new pearl
harbor” to respond to the hijacked planes in the most
armed to the teeth superpower state, most certainly should have
indicated to any rational forensic mind that stand-down orders had
been issued, and therefore, 911 was an 'inside job'. A military-level
precision planned coup d'état on the peoples of the United
States by its own insiders, with puppetshows to match. For Iran to
not have called it as such, to not have pushed any resolutions to
this effect in the United Nations when they have precariously stood
at the brink of ostensibly being attacked by both the United States
and Israel for the past several years, and not even deriving any
propaganda value from it in its own nation's self-defense, is bizarre
shortsightedness to say the least (see “Letter
to Editor Press TV with a message to the Iranian Peoples”).
Since no genuine statesmen can be so shortsighted in modern politics,
and since being gullible patsies and morons does not fit the
description, it begs the question why?

Why
has even Russia not made such a move – they already experienced
Georgia's aggression in Ossetia, and for the past several years have
been experiencing NATO's systematic construction of the suffocating
ring around Russia's security perimeter - and Mr. Putin is no slouch!
He is even a blackbelt judomaster – one who knows how to
exploit both the strengths and weaknesses of one's enemy.

The
deafening silence among all the present rulers, presidents, prime
ministers, military dictators, kings and their surrogates, of all the
nations of the planet, speaks volumes in support of Skousen's
analysis. Otherwise, for brilliant intellectuals and astute political
antagonists to not harvest these things low hanging fruits and use
them to their own advantage is outright absurd.

But
wait, it might only come unraveled in 50 or 100 years once the
world-government is won, and historians and intellectuals get to mint
some distinction discovering the pink-panther gloves and rehearsing
the fait accomplis of what is long-past. Just as they boldly do today
of the extermination of the indigenous populations of this continent.
It is considered high scholarship to quote from the colonists diaries
and to expose how the natives' heads were chopped off for trophies
and small-pox was spread among them with Gattling guns finishing them
off. Personally, I have no need of such “wise”
historians, scholars, intellectuals, theorists, and leaders for
whom history has become mindless “recollections of our
past”, and is not the “responsibility for the
future”. I surely have no use for master criminals, and
those who diabolically aid and abet them in their conquests. And I
most assuredly, daily, several times each hour, bring the imprecation
of Elie Wiesel upon all of them.

So
examine this erudite exposition of the 'katputli tamasha'
(puppetshow) without a single reference to 'fiat money as national
debt' and the interests paid on it to private banksters in perpetuity
(by present and future tax payers of this nation). Nor is there a
single reference to the fact that the international banksters
outright control the Federal Reserve System who are deliberately
shrinking credit just as they did in the years of the Great
Depression to calculatingly seed Great Depression II, nor any
exposition of why the banksters would want to create a greater
financial crises as if it was all a great cosmic mystery (see
“Response
to Financial Times Gideon Rachman's 'And now for a world
government'”).
Instead, some erudite academic gibberish is thrown as red herrings to
the hungry searching for answers from the oracle:

“Press
TV: Just finally Professor Chomsky, the US economy, of course where
you are -that is dominating the news and the lives all Americans and
arguably the people around the world- and this 825 billion dollar
package. How do you think the Obama people are going to handle this?

Chomsky:
Nobody really knows. I mean, what is happening with the economy is
not well understood. It is based on extremely opaque financial
manipulations, which are quite hard to decode. I mean, the general
process is understood, but whether the $800 billion, or probably
larger government stimulus, will overcome this crisis, is not known.

The
first $350 billion have already been spent- that is the so-called
part bailout but that went into the pockets of banks. They were
supposed to start lending freely, but they just decided not to do it.
They would rather enrich themselves, restore their own capital, and
take over other banks- mergers and acquisition and so on.

Whether
the next stimulus will have an effect depends very much on how it is
handled, whether it is monitored, so that it is used for constructive
purposes. [It relies] also on factors that are just not known, like
how deep this crisis is going to be.

It
is a worldwide crisis and it is very serious. It is suddenly striking
that the ways that Western countries are approaching the crisis is
exactly the same as the model that they enforce on the Third World
when there is a crisis.

So
when Indonesia has a crisis, Argentina and everyone else, they are
supposed to raise interest rates very high and privatize the economy,
and cut down on public spending, measures like that. In the West, it
is the exact opposite: lower interest rates to zero, move towards
nationalization if necessary, pour money into the economy, have huge
debts.

That
is exactly the opposite of how the Third World is supposed to pay off
its debts, and that this seems to pass without comment is remarkable.
These measures for the West are ones that might get the economy
moving again, while it has been a disaster for others.”

The
self-evident conclusion can only be seeded in a caveat lector. Can’t
put one’s own brain on hold, never mind how small, just because
some mighty oracles speak from the divine mountain. While it may
perhaps be arguable that (excerpts are from “Responsibility
of Intellectuals – Redux”)

“It
is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to
expose lies”, and “Intellectuals are in a position
to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to
their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western
world, at least, they have the power that comes from political
liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression”,
and “the responsibility of a writer as a moral agent is to
try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an
audience that can do something about them.”

It
is also outright true that:

“There
is no a priori reason to believe claims to morality by the
intellectual, as asserted by Chomsky with the banal phrase 'the
responsibility of a writer as a moral agent'.”

because
it isn't entirely obvious:

“Why
may the intellectual not be an exponent of Machiavelli in the service
of the powerful, of 'power and its incantations', telling 'Nobel
Lies' to serve the ruling interests? After all, those who run
'systems' also need intellectual and doctrinal backbone to carry them
out, don't they?”

“Isn't
it but manifest empiricism that since the Renaissance that preceded
the industrial revolution, with the waning of kingdoms and
aristocracies, feudalism and servitude, and the arrival of plebeian
norms and free thinking that were the precursors of modern day
'populist democracy' in the West, new forms of plebeian intellectual
regimentation and willing control (despite that being a nonsequitur)
were invented in astute political philosophy to serve the interests
of the ruling elite? From Machiavelli's "Prince", through
Nietzsche's "ubermensch", to Strauss' "Nobel Lies"
of modernity, are of course all intellectualism too, and in the very
distinguished service of the ruling interests. So what's wrong with
such intellectualism?”

Except
of course,

“if
such self-apportioned responsibility by the intellectual is merely a
tool to serve an end, and not an end in itself. Just as it is a tool
in the hands of the Machiavellian espousing the morality of supermen,
if it becomes a tool in the hands of the intellectual espousing the
banal morality, one not beyond good and evil, but specifically only
intended to serve the plebeian.”

And
therefore,

“The
test of that is daily and constant", to be “administered
by the plebeians themselves.”

Has
Noam Chomsky passed this test? The following conclusions on the
dissent of Noam Chomsky must surface publicly and be addressed by him
directly if his intellectual legacy is not to be despoiled
posthumously by charges of co-option. His failure to question the
core-axioms of his own ruling-elite repeatedly at the most momentous
events in any intellectual's life, is his tacit admission of
complicity. From the assassination of JFK (where Chomsky strangely
echoed the fundamental mantras of the establishment, of
'lone-gunman'), to 911 (where Chomsky again immediately echoed the
fundamental doctrinal mantras of the establishment of 'Bin Laden and
his merry band of 19 Muslim men'). And on both occasions, he
sophistedly reasoned that it didn't matter who perpetuated those
monumental terror acts – which have, by the way, dramatically
altered the course of human history – when his reasoning hasn't
been accepted by the skeptics. Chomsky obviously can't otherwise
coherently respond to how did Bin Laden ever orchestrate the
collapsing of WTC-7 into its own footprints at near free-fall speed,
when no plane hit it (see “Letter
to Noam Chomsky on Steven Jones seminal paper on the destruction of
WTC”).

For
an honest intellectual who has harped upon the “responsibility
of intellectuals', that WTC-7 sudden collapse inexplicability, among
several others (see Foreword,
“Prisoners
of the Cave”),
should have been sufficient grounds for instantly rejecting the 'Ali
Baba' axiom emanating from America's rulers (see “Ali
Baba in Mumbai”).
And especially when one has time and again described their malignant
take-over of America as a criminal “rogue state” and
“terrorist state”. Which rational mind accepts any
criminal's and terrorist's testimony when one has already determined
them as such? This is way beyond indoctrination. Way beyond mere
difference of opinion among hotshot scholars. It is outright deceit
of no less measure than the empire's own vulgar circus clowns who
peddle its mantras for “doctrinal motivation”.

Chomsky
called Bernard Lewis a “vulgar propagandist and not a
scholar” (see interview on CBC
Part 2,
minute 5:50) for his unpardonable role in having created and
perpetuated the mantras of empire for manufacturing consent
among its sheeples. But Noam Chomsky himself perpetuates the very
same axiom as Bernard Lewis, the “vulgar propagandist and
not a scholar”, that Bin Laden did 911! This perpetuating
the same core-lie among the dissent-space in the guise of critiquing
the empire and its excesses, and being the contrarian to the
manufacturing of consent and even theorizing about it in Goebbellian
terms, is what one might call manufacturing dissent. It is far
more sophisticated than vulgar propaganda, and requires far greater
intellectual prowess and fast footwork to pull it off. It mainly
relies on the lack of any long term memory and forensic skills among
the followers even though, unlike the majority of masses who fall
prey to the manufactured consent, they may have a higher questioning
attitude and easily aroused to activism on moral causes. Cleverly
controlling this smaller rebel team is the job of manufacturing
dissent.

What
brilliant dialectics of deception for herding all levels of sheep!
Hitler had foreseen no need for the latter when he classified people
of any society into three broad categories in Mein Kampf based on
their susceptibility to propaganda, and advocated only the former for
creating the 'united we stand' in his Third Reich from “the
crowd of simpletons and the credulous ... when the voting papers of
the masses are the deciding factor” (see “Weapons
of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science”).

But
in the Fourth Reich's version, between the high-priests of empire
calculatingly manufacturing consent (by taking some well worn
leaves out of Goebbells handbook who in turn took it from the
American Edward Bernays', but it goes at least as far back as Plato's
'Myth of the Cave'), and the high-priests of the dissent space
artfully manufacturing dissent (an art neglected by Hitler),
these intellectuals of left and right, top and bottom, have the
entire discourse space nicely constrained by retaining the same damn
axioms of empire regardless of where you turn for an oracle. Then the
chutzpah of Noam Chomsky – probably laughing at the suckers who
lap it up and never apply it to him – to even explain how such
constraining is useful to empire:

“The
smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate
within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and
dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free
thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the
system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the
debate.”

And
isn't that amazing, that all these high-priests of scholarship hail
from the same heritage as the banksters out to create
world-government along with the owners of the presses and the media,
and that the New York Times, from among the 200 million Christians in
America, and at least a couple of billion in the Western world, never
mind the rest of the inconsequential four billion humanity, could
only find another Jew to bestow the title of “arguably the
most important intellectual alive”, thus churning the honey
for all the overzealous disgruntled flies to gather on from among
their own kith? Is there no Christian scholar in the West worthy of
such title?

How
many backcovers of books has Chomsky adorned that title on,
misleading even statesman like Chavez to wave his book in the UN as
evidence of imperialism coming from the empire's own top priest?

We
find people tripping over themselves to interview Noam Chomsky, and
to hear him speak, and what does he end up reinforcing after all the
“sense of free thinking” is stripped off to zoom
into the unstated axioms of his dissent? The same thing as Bernard
Lewis – the “vulgar propagandist and not a scholar”
– “presuppositions of the system reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate”. And Chomsky imposes
that limit on himself to preclude all challenges from anyone in the
dissent space who isn't already dismissed as an overzealous 'kook'.
His attitude towards 911 researchers and 'truthers' for example is
entirely explained under this model of manufactured dissent. (Also
see footnote [a10] in “Monetary
Conspiracy for World Government”
for another example of vigorous dissent packaging the same
“presuppositions of the system” but to the massive
accolades from anyone who watches that performance)

But
Noam Chomsky's most egregious crime, as the most highly decorated
intellectual of the dissent-space, is the crime of blatant omission.
Of not exposing the first-principles of the economic fraud that is
entirely based upon the first-principles of the nature and control of
money. A control so enormous, and so diabolically astute, that there
cannot be one greater. Its consolidation in the private hands of a
small group of very identifiable global ruling-families who share
Chomsky's Jewish heritage, and whose agenda for world-government is
no privileged 'state-secret' but only cloaked in layers of deception,
is just ripe for a decorated intellectual to dismantle. And yet, its
unraveling has escaped the plethora of Noam Chomsky books that I have
read that is filled with myriad of facts and narratives from already
published public sources like the New York Times, and which have,
incidentally, also made him enormously wealthy peddling his famed
dissent ( see “Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist”, Hoover
Institution
).

I
am happy to eat crow, many crows, if Noam Chomsky can identify
erroneous conclusions on my part and clarify matters convincingly. I
am still an ordinary student, still eager to learn. But I don't hold
out much promise from a much lauded octogenarian dissent-priest who
has already lived his most productive years of dissent and already
done much damage, especially since 911 as he traveled the world
peddling the axioms of empire underneath the veneer of bashing its
imperialism. Noam Chomsky's omissions have been outright criminal and
indefensible. His platitudes on the “responsibility of
intellectuals” outright hypocritical and laden with sophistry.
His description of the crimes of empire entirely meaningless when
they maintain the core-lies and never identify the real criminals
with an intent to deceive and deflect attention. For ignorance is not
a charge that can be credibly laid on the doorstep of Noam Chomsky
any more than it can be laid on the doorstep of Bernard Lewis.

As
someone who learnt his craft from his teacher, the moral platitudes
that the teacher taught, which this scribe genuinely took to heart,
make it incumbent upon me to scream that it is high time the victim
civilizations, and those men and women of conscience rising to
protest the crimes against humanity of their own modern rulers,
wizened up to the dialectics of deception.

Stop
seeking analysis and solutions from famously manufactured oracles.
Socrates only existed in Plato's imagination. Use your own bloody
head, however tiny. Six feet under, the maggots can't tell the size.
But we may all live longer and happier before getting to the maggots
if we were without our false leaders, without our false scholars, and
without our false hope and our false sense of satisfaction that our
moral dissent and protests in their traditional style made the whit
of a difference to the tyrants or to their plans.

The
author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary
geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied
EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley
(patents here),
and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden
2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web
at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org.
He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
Verbatim reproduction license at
http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Copyright.

Reprint License

All
material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with
full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety,
unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted in perpetuity,
provided the source URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part
of this restricted Reprint License, along with any embedded links within its
main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license
violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All figures, images,
quotations and excerpts, are used without permission based on
non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research
use only in the greater public interest, documenting crimes
against humanity, deconstructing current affairs, and scholarly
commentary. The usage by Project Humanbeingsfirst of all external
material is minimally consistent with the understanding of "fair
use" laws at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.
Project Humanbeingsfirst does not endorse any external website or organization it links to or references, nor those that may link to it or reprint its works.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you
are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your
request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents
in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the
documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You
are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from
other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”.